Cold War Cultural Representations: The Films of Charles and Ray Eames. In Roberts, P (Ed.), Going Soft? The US and China Go Global, p. 108-121. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014 How to Cite?

Abstract

In 1970 the notable furniture designer Charles Eames opened the first of a series of six lectures at Harvard by announcing a dilemma: “There has developed in this country now a universal sense of expectation in which each person feels that he has the right to anything, that anyone, and the other person has.”1 Later in the lecture series he called for a revision of the universal expectations, a reconsideration of the very nature of what to desire; indeed, the new covetables described by Eames were not innovative objects for conspicuous consumption but innovative models, concepts, and skill sets. What may appear as an inconsistent turn, for an individual whose reputation had been established by the design of mass-produced goods, and whose 1940s mantra proclaimed “to make the best, for the most, for the least,” could be interpreted as an inspired transition away from celebrating the mechanism of production and towards addressing nationalistic needs. Throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s a tactical shift occurred in the Eameses’ office away from designing objects that were purported to solve social needs, while moving towards forming a comprehensive framework through which one could creatively educate the American population in order to meet ever-changing Cold War demands.

In 1970 the notable furniture designer Charles Eames opened the first of a series of six lectures at Harvard by announcing a dilemma: “There has developed in this country now a universal sense of expectation in which each person feels that he has the right to anything, that anyone, and the other person has.”1 Later in the lecture series he called for a revision of the universal expectations, a reconsideration of the very nature of what to desire; indeed, the new covetables described by Eames were not innovative objects for conspicuous consumption but innovative models, concepts, and skill sets. What may appear as an inconsistent turn, for an individual whose reputation had been established by the design of mass-produced goods, and whose 1940s mantra proclaimed “to make the best, for the most, for the least,” could be interpreted as an inspired transition away from celebrating the mechanism of production and towards addressing nationalistic needs. Throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s a tactical shift occurred in the Eameses’ office away from designing objects that were purported to solve social needs, while moving towards forming a comprehensive framework through which one could creatively educate the American population in order to meet ever-changing Cold War demands.